A Nation Divided over Piracy: My solution

Digg Article

Big news in Sweden. I have spent the last hour or two reading up on it.

Basically, some guy started a webpage, and ended up quitting his job and running a pro-piracy politicial party a few days later, due to the immense support he recieved.

But that is not the issue at hand. Reading all I have, what stuck with me was this: Artists had to, in past, "sign with a label" simply because it was the only way to gain exposure. With the internet, the need for these "cartels" to exist (as they're called in the articles) are removed. In essence, they are of the opinion that these "middle men" are sitting with too much money, and will do anything in their power to keep themselves in the loop.

Number two's, sequels and same-old-same-old pop are all products of these middlemen's squeezings. The bottom line, for creative work anyways, is that artists love exposure.

There is a lot to be thought out though. It's uncertain if we'd see big-budget movies had the media hierarchies been structured differently.

My Solution is this:

The world (We) need to come up with a new networking billing model whereby you are automatically paid for providing content and automatically debited for using content. A debit-credit billing system.

I don't know how feasible this can be, but something in there makes a whole lot of sense and to me, it would appear that it's just a matter of architecting a transition to a more economical model.

After all, you don't pay your plumber for the water flowing through your pipes.

It all seems daunting right now, as there are too many hacking and security issues to consider, not to mention problems of caching, downloading/viewing but not using, but this is what's in my head: DNS Servers rate IP endpoints based on their popularity. Data is "priced" based on it's source and target destination. Maybe a model can even be thought up where service providers administration fees are covered in a fair and elegant way: lower latency scores higher or something (an incentive to install better hardware!)

Beginning this is so simple: If you're a CS Student, simulate it in a small program; If you're a developer, develop the protocols and start using and publishing them. If you're a marketer..... pirate, politician, AI....

What I would really like to know, and would appreciate replies on, is this:

Have you ever heard of / know of any people, sites, companies or parties working / researching / saying things about a solution such as the one I am thinking of?

This is one of the current big issues of our time, right alongside current morality issues.

Sounds like

Sounds like you have been learning too much from our cell operators. IMO simpler is better. AND people need to know exactly what they are paying for (unless it's so cheap that you don't care?). Are you possibly suggesting that MyADSL traffic should cost more cos it's a pop board?
Just wondering and trying to follow...

Tunasashimi said:

Artists had to, in past, "sign with a label" simply because it was the only way to gain exposure. With the internet, the need for these "cartels" to exist (as they're called in the articles) are removed. In essence, they are of the opinion that these "middle men" are sitting with too much money, and will do anything in their power to keep themselves in the loop.

Number two's, sequels and same-old-same-old pop are all products of these middlemen's squeezings. The bottom line, for creative work anyways, is that artists love exposure.

There is a lot to be thought out though. It's uncertain if we'd see big-budget movies had the media hierarchies been structured differently.

My Solution is this:

The world (We) need to come up with a new networking billing model whereby you are automatically paid for providing content and automatically debited for using content. A debit-credit billing system.

Click to expand...

This is part of the holy grail sought by the corporate media industry. Their goal is to be able to charge you over and over for the same thing (and I don't just mean sequels, clones and 5 million cooker cutter pop albums).

We might not have music megastars and insanely expensive movies if not for the corporate media industry, but would that be a bad thing? Do we need yet another movie with more special effects than acting or story? Do we need a minority of spoiled overpaid musicians? Thankfully music is already at the point where it is fairly cheap and easy to make and distribute your own music. Technology that will allow this for movies is starting to become available. None of this is driven by the interests of the major media industry, but by technology itself. No wonder the MPAA, RIAA etc. would love to crush progress.

Special effects might have developed more slowly and movies might not be stuffed with them if not for the big money in big budget movies, but they would have come anyway simply because it is computer technology that ultimately makes them possible. And the artists that actually do the work to create those special effects are largely quite poorly paid, especially considering the the stress of their jobs and the extreme hours they're expected to work.

The big media industry should be viewed like any other form of organised crime. They're employing the own version of the same extortion and thuggery you'll see used by the mafia.

Well personally I hate your idea. You are exchaning one middle man for another. (Record Company for Transaction Broker). The Internet has done away with the need for a middle man. Thats what the record Companies hate about it. Previously you had to buy their little bit of Plastic (or Vinyl or whatever). Now it's totally unecessary. They don't want to move on though, because they were making insane profits. It's like they were water sellers in the desert, and now it's started raining. So they are going to try legislate their outdated business model into permanence. (For Health reasons you may not use water in the rivers). Oh and come up with all this "morality" crap. Check out how many times they have been hit for Price Fixing in the last few years. And they tell me I'm stealing from them????

Why does content need to be payed for? Recording artists make nothing out of record sales anyhow. People pay to attend their concerts. The more people who hear and like your stuff (say through the Internet), the more you who will be willing to pay to attend your gigs. Ok, you are unlikely to become super mega filthy rich this way. And the record companies are going to make nothing. The present music model actually kills music. It kills variety, it kills innovation. It's all dumbed down, bland, souless mulch made for the mass market. Oh and throw a semi naked chick into the video. As Roger Waters pointed out a couple of years ago, modern music is just Soft Porn. There is of course, some amazing music out there. Just chances are you aren't going to hear it on the radio. Instead you will get 20 "Gangsta" variants, singing (sortof) about how much money they have and how cool they are, over the melody created by a real musician 20 years ago. Ah well, I guess the kiddies like it, but then they have never heard anything else and know no better.

Musicians make music because they love it. And whats the point in making music if noboddy will ever hear it? And if you can make a living doing it, well thats just great. Record companies distribute music because they want to be rich(er), AND WE DON'T NEED THEM ANYMORE. We had music before the record companies existed. We will have music after they have gone the way of the Dodo.

But the important thing is that I'm not bitter!

Maybe the e-book model, but with music instead?

The concept of the artist direct selling to the market vs the "value add" of the label under the traditional system.... Are we just replacing one middleman centered distribution system with another? Wouldn't the internet be a more cost effective distribution system?

There's a new economic order coming, methinks.

Interesting thread.

Personally I'd prefer to keep things free.

Bottom line SA consumers are ripped from stage one and i can understand the piracy and free syndrome, heck I agree in principal...

Piracy, yeah its more than an issue, wait until you take all your hard earned capital, set up a wikkid shop full of gaming loot and no one buys cause they just pirate it all, bollocks, so if you pirate, youre a twat, needless to say I was a full blown twat now and the shoe is on the other foot. To make money out of gaming you gotta sell all the fringe and peripheral type stuff, software especially the PSP games are the biggest waste to buy and stock your shop with, especially in SA, me I'm stumped as to what strategy to take next, it will most definately be the strategy with the least amount of piracy involved...

It isn't only piracy. Only people who are impatient or lazy actually buy their games and DVDs locally. Why bother when they can be imported, often for half the price, including shipping and VAT?

A warning to all vendors, dont buy PSP games, unless you really wanna throw cash into the wind...they hardly sell and the laaities just torrent them, I bought over 30k and have sold 1 in 2 months!!!! go figure....anyone need coffee coasters?

GougedEye said:

Well personally I hate your idea. You are exchaning one middle man for another. (Record Company for Transaction Broker).

Click to expand...

Here's the thing:

It does cost money to provide content - by one way or another. Companies are coming up with License fees, Royalties, and so forth, to compensate, partially.

The beauty of the design I have in mind is this (should cache and/or rogue sources and/or artificial traffic - be somehow eliminatable - in theory, easily with secure certificates) -then there is no middleman. (Not as such. But every single piece of wire owned by a different company, that your packets travel across, when you ping google, effectively constitutes a different middleman. The internet is a conglomeration of middlemen, some inadvertantly exploiting others due to the lack of an elegant compensation system.)

If you provide sought-after content, you are compensated automatically, by means of a smart almost-universal algorithm. And so is everyone involved in your connection: Every ISP and every machine your packets travel through. If I install some terabit switch with gigalistic fibre to all the best content providers, and most traffic gets routed through my network, my network gets an awful lot more "data-credits" than Koos with his dodgy 1mbit WISP connections nextdoor.

But I suppose im getting a bit above my own head, now.. for now

The Internet has done away with the need for a middle man. Thats what the record Companies hate about it.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I realised just before I posted this thread. But what I'm thinking is this:

A universal solution for monetary compensation to data plumbers and content providers.

Why does content need to be payed for? Recording artists make nothing out of record sales anyhow.

Click to expand...

Correct. But what you're saying could easily be expanded to: Why should anything be paid for? Why isn't everything free? What is money?

Simply put. Helium. The more you offer, the more you get, the quicker you can rise above the non-contributing masses. Or in the world of intellectual property, or more accurately, world-flattery... aargh you know. I've lost the plot.

Do you see the smoke?

Art -> Inspiration -> Creation. Moral issues aside, digital rights is the issue at hand. Artists getting compensated for their work. The more demand, the more compensation, kind of makes sense.

But expand that to all kinds of content providers: News, Images, Music, 3D models, Computer code.

The bottom line is this: We can architect a new protocol on the internet, that takes care of this monetary compensation fairly and elegantly - by utilising live statistics that are a by-product of this network that we have created.

I am sure somewhere in the world is a whole pile of theses on the subject. My question is "Where?"; Any acronyms attached that me in my mortal insignificance, am unaware of? Maybe I should start building that multi-giga-something network. And... finish off my AI that will provide all the content anyone would ever need. I never know when to stop. Camouflage.

Hey, maybe Google will read this, and discover their ultimate goal

Well I'm just going to pipe in with my 2c worth on this one.

How exactly will your magical system take into account all the varying economic cultures and legislation of all the varying different countries the Internet traverses. and of course how are you going to convince the people making LARGE profits to hand over control of their content?

You’re making this too complex. Pirate sites like pirate bay, ninja central etc, should "buy rights to XXX pop star or XXX movie or XXX software", and then should charge for monthly access to the site, regardless of the amount or content on the site, the file then contains a checksum/encryption key that only THAT tracker/newsgroup can use, use the internet as a distribution medium, ppl are charged for being a member, not for the content they download.

My 2c, could be done ;/

I really think you need to take a step back and think about this again, you're all on really odd tangents.

Doobie's 3 rules of media:

0.a. Piracy is bad
0.b. Media Companies are money sucking scum
0.c. People are idiots

There is no justification for stealing other peoples work, but nor is there any excuse for profiteering on non essential services, but both do it because people are not prepared to fight.

There is no need for a new network protocol, super widget whatever, all that's needed already exists. What's needed is the reduction in the 'fat' in media prices. The average artist gets less than $1 per $12 CD sold! unfortunately as site's like MP3.com have proven, if you just open the floodgates, you get inundated with cr@p and nobody is prepared to go through the rubbish to find the good stuff.

So you do need a middleman the question is what sort?

My evil plan to take over the world? Artist published music connected to a social networking infrastructure like digg or mySpace. low quality radio streams and pay per download (The All of MP3 billing model is quite a good one)

Those with the time to listen can promote the stuff they like, and those that don't have the time can just follow the recommendations.

The biggest challenge is attracting big name titles to the system to raise awareness.

doobiwan said:

There is no justification for stealing other peoples work, but nor is there any excuse for profiteering on non essential services, but both do it because people are not prepared to fight.

Artist published music connected to a social networking infrastructure like digg or mySpace. low quality radio streams and pay per download (The All of MP3 billing model is quite a good one)

Those with the time to listen can promote the stuff they like, and those that don't have the time can just follow the recommendations.

The biggest challenge is attracting big name titles to the system to raise awareness.

Click to expand...

One of the good ideas at AllofMP3 is allowing the customer to choose their format, data rate and not encumbering the files with annoying restrictions.

Copying however isn't stealing. I know they want us to equate stealing a car with replicating a CD, but it just ain't so. Someone making a copy is at worst depriving them of potential income. Let's see what the JSE has to say about me declaring potential income. If my competitors weren't bastards I'd be making X, so please buy my stock.

Traditionally music is promoted through social networks. You like something you tell your friends, lend them your discs etc. 90% of the new music I hear is stuff that comes through the grapevine. And it was always that way.

The real challenge is killing off the idea of stars and big names, especially in music.

Piracy is a another word for.... Giving.

Thought I was gonna say stealing hey?

I think it's awesome if you create a system whereby people have to pay for content, and the content providers are rewarded (content providers being angents, artists, labels, don't really matter).

But this idea is so awesome that it already exists. ITunes, Online Music Stores, Online MP3 Stores, Prem-Rated SMS downloads for content.

There are actually sooooo many online shops that sell papers, research, pictures/art and photos that it's not even funny.

On the other hand, people should also be allowed to GIVE stuff for FREE! But your system makes no provision for the guys that's just in-it for the Fame!

So it all comes down to choice, people should be allowed to steal but must face the punishment that society imposes (if they get caught). And people should be allowed to decide wether or not they want to sell their content or give it away for free.

Simply, if a CD costs me R200 (and my overpriced Internet Connection costs the same and I can download the same CD and 10 Others with my GB's) then I'm probably just going to steal it and the content providers (and artist/s) deserve to have their content stolen!

On the other hand, if a music costs 20c per Song and thus a CD will cost me
R4 (for content so make it R10 for CD and music) and I still rather download the music for free, I should be Fined!

I gotta laugh at myself, after the whole PSP get your free coffee coaster jaunt I sold like 5 PSP games an hour after the post...go figure, scratches his head...

ok, I'm half asleep but there's a such thing as DRM - is this what are you talking about? Basically if your movie is DRM protected you can distribute it via p2p without any worries, the person that downloads it needs to pay in order to watch the movie

if i'm way off base plz ignore